+- FsPassengers Forums (http://www.fspassengers.com/forum)
+-- Forum: FsPassengers (http://www.fspassengers.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: FsPassengers General (http://www.fspassengers.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: About the 1300nm cap (/showthread.php?tid=18269)
About the 1300nm cap - Minami Chan - 04-03-2018
Hello all. After conducting many researches on the economics in the aviation industry, I am still not convinced that a 1300 mile cap for pax/cargo income is realistic at all. I also found this spoils the fun of flying long-range jets. Is there anyway to change this to a more realistic model, lets say gradually decreasing income per passenger rather than a hard limiter. Or at least how can I lift/remove this cap? I seriously think this should be included in the options as I would rather fly without fleet income than with this cap. Thanks.
RE: About the 1300nm cap - Joeflyer - 05-03-2018
It's not a "cap" per sey...as you put it. Rather, it's the point in which you get diminishing returns beyond 1,300nm. Unless you can guarantee that every flight you do is going to be full with paxs, your ticket prices/services are always going to be alluring to everyone, and fuel/insurance costs are going to be stable throughout the ownership of your company, I can see some redeeming value for anything over 1,300nm. When flying passengers, you aren't guaranteed anything.
If you wanted to make the best of the long hauls, fly more freight instead of passengers. You can get more bang for your buck that way. And, no, you can't lift the "cap". It's hard coded in the program. If multiple users thought that having this law of diminishing returns was a horrible idea, I'm sure Dan would have made some adjustment to the software.
RE: About the 1300nm cap - Minami Chan - 05-03-2018
(05-03-2018, 03:26 PM)Joeflyer Wrote: It's not a "cap" per sey...as you put it. Rather, it's the point in which you get diminishing returns beyond 1,300nm. Unless you can guarantee that every flight you do is going to be full with paxs, your ticket prices/services are always going to be alluring to everyone, and fuel/insurance costs are going to be stable throughout the ownership of your company, I can see some redeeming value for anything over 1,300nm. When flying passengers, you aren't guaranteed anything.
If you wanted to make the best of the long hauls, fly more freight instead of passengers. You can get more bang for your buck that way. And, no, you can't lift the "cap". It's hard coded in the program. If multiple users thought that having this law of diminishing returns was a horrible idea, I'm sure Dan would have made some adjustment to the software.
Hello Joeflyer, Thank you for your reply.
I totally agree on the idea of diminished returns and that airlines make less profit PER PASSENGER PER MILE on long haul flights. The key is per passenger per MILE, not PER FLIGHT. The idea of "shorter flights make more profits is based on the fact that frequencies of these flights are higher and ticket prices PER MILE are higher. It does not translate into the assumption that airlines make less money PER FLIGHT on international routes. If this is not the case, then why would airlines operate 747s, 777s, A340s and A380s? Why would Boeing's point to point idea work and hence the Dreamliner?
FsPX's model of diminished returns means less profit PER FLIGHT, which is not accurate at all. The ticket prices simply stop at 1300nm, which should be called a hard limiter or a cap by definition. Your passengers pay the same price for LHR-ATH as LHR-JFK or even LHR-SYD. Nobody is gonna say this is a good approximation. Less money per mile? Probably. Less money per the whole flight? No way. In fact I flew from PEK to SFO last month for 1200 bucks (5000nm) and flew from SFO to BOS for 300 (2500nm). Both time eco class. Fuel/Salary/Airframe/Insurance/Tax/Maint costs should eat up 3/4 of the passenger fares, roughly the same percentage on any flight, which also supports my point.
This really makes long flights not as enjoyable as it should be. I think at least an option should be considered. Or even better, implement a closer model such as diminished revenue per mile as range increases. Should look like a parabolic curve of some sort. But don't forget to calculate this base on intervals (i.e. 0-1000, 1000-2000, etc.)
Also, irrelevant to this topic but still worth a mention. The insurance costs for international flights are ridiculous.
Also #2, I've heard that you can only have a fleet size of 40ish airframes. I mean come on Dan...
Happy flying.
Minami Chan
RE: About the 1300nm cap - Joeflyer - 05-03-2018
Minami, all valid points indeed. You seem to understand the airline industry fairly well.
I don't know if Dan would attempt this but it certainly is up to him how far he wants
to take it.
RE: About the 1300nm cap - Minami Chan - 05-03-2018
(05-03-2018, 08:46 PM)Joeflyer Wrote: Minami, all valid points indeed. You seem to understand the airline industry fairly well.
I don't know if Dan would attempt this but it certainly is up to him how far he wants
to take it.
Hi. Thank you for replying. Let's hope so. FsPX is really half of the the reason why I've played FSX for 12 yrs and will continue (the other half being PMDG products). That's why I really wish the best of this amazing piece of software.
Happy flying
Minami Chan
RE: About the 1300nm cap - DanSteph - 20-06-2018
Hi Minami Chan,
Just set to 10800Nm for FsPassengersP3Dv4 (For Prepar3Dv4) (half the circumference of earth, more would mean that the player cheat)
I don't know if I'll update FsPX yet, I'm too busy with the V4. (and sorry for the delay, I'm here because of another thread
)Kind regards
Dan
RE: About the 1300nm cap - Minami Chan - 21-06-2018
(20-06-2018, 05:11 PM)DanSteph Wrote: Hi Minami Chan,
Just set to 10800Nm for FsPassengersP3Dv4 (For Prepar3Dv4) (half the circumference of earth, more would mean that the player cheat)
I don't know if I'll update FsPX yet, I'm too busy with the V4. (and sorry for the delay, I'm here because of another thread
Kind regards
Dan
Thanks for the update. Unfortunately, I have no plan of switching to P3D yet... But great works anyway. Thanks.
RE: About the 1300nm cap - DanSteph - 22-06-2018
(21-06-2018, 09:09 AM)Minami Chan Wrote: Thanks for the update. Unfortunately, I have no plan of switching to P3D yet... But great works anyway. Thanks.
Too bad because I cannot spend countless hour on testing the economics and I would need users advices to tune things.
Also this FsPassengers "v4" version will probably be released for FsX in some month with the same code.
If you don't mind that I ask some questions ?
I removed the 1400 CAP and set this new calculus as below.
I checked the longest air line in the world is Doha->Auckland and it's not so expensive in economic, about $2000 only.
Does this sound good for you ? (Green line, distance in km NOT Nm)
![[Image: 180622-150405_FastStoneEditor1.jpg]](http://www.dansteph.com/screenshots/180622-150405_FastStoneEditor1.jpg)
(21-06-2018, 09:09 AM)Minami Chan Wrote: The insurance costs for international flights are ridiculous.
Do you have some example of flight income/insurance ?
Kind regards
Dan
RE: About the 1300nm cap - Minami Chan - 23-06-2018
(22-06-2018, 02:06 PM)DanSteph Wrote:(21-06-2018, 09:09 AM)Minami Chan Wrote: Thanks for the update. Unfortunately, I have no plan of switching to P3D yet... But great works anyway. Thanks.
Too bad because I cannot spend countless hour on testing the economics and I would need users advices to tune things.
Also this FsPassengers "v4" version will probably be released for FsX in some month with the same code.
If you don't mind that I ask some questions ?
I removed the 1400 CAP and set this new calculus as below.
I checked the longest air line in the world is Doha->Auckland and it's not so expensive in economic, about $2000 only.
Does this sound good for you ? (Green line, distance in km NOT Nm)
(21-06-2018, 09:09 AM)Minami Chan Wrote: The insurance costs for international flights are ridiculous.
Do you have some example of flight income/insurance ?
Kind regards
Dan
Hi Dan, Thank you for trusting my inputs. Really appreciate it. Too bad that I accidentally closed my browser after finishing a thousand words reply. I will make it concise this time.
The green line really reflects what I wanted to convey. I think it is accurate enough for flight sim purposes. Only thing is that short flights can be cheaper since nowadays low-cost operators are popular for short trips. Some other considerations like seasons and the fact that airlines set low prices at first then gradually increase them are hard to implement so can be ignored.
Some examples of ticket prices as we sell them (lowest possible options, not including taxes and insurances)
(Transfer flights are cheaper for international/long flights and can be considered equivalent to low-cost flights for short hauls.)
Short:
LGW-FRA (400nm): Ryanair: $25 (lol), BA and Lufthansa: $100
NKG-PEK (600nm): China Eastern: $50, Air China: $70
Med:
BOS-SFO (2300nm): United: $200, Delta & JetBlue: $400
NRT-HNL (3300nm): JAL: $450, United & ANA: $650, Hawaiian: $850
Long:
LHR-LAX (4700nm): Norwegian: $600 (transfer flight), Air New Zealand: $1000, AA & BA: $2000
PEK-SFO (5100nm): Delta (2 transfer flights): $500, United: $1000, Air China: $1500
Extra long:
DOH-LAX (7200nm): Turkish & BA (transfer flight): $1400, Qatar: $1750
SYD-JFK (8700nm): Qantas & United (transfer flight): $1300, Qantas: $2000 (This one will be flown on the new A350ULR. Operations are expected to begin in 2022, this will be the longest nonstop commercial flight. The price is estimated.)
(PS: these prices are only valid at my location at the moment of this reply. Since I use a different currency, I rounded the prices to the nearest hundreds)
The effects of routes, operators and seasons sometimes exceed that of distances. It's just too complicated and dynamic.
In terms of incomes, I have no first hand info. But according to what we know about the industry, it's not that much.
Ryanair normally has a load factor of 90% which is impressive. A flight of 600nm with 737-800 costs around $8000-10000 including salary, fuel, taxes, maintenance costs, airframe costs (aircraft price per cycle), insurances and airlines running costs. 90% on a 738 is around 160 passengers. If they operate the flight with a price lower than $50 per passenger, they lose money. SWA's main profit is not their flights according to some. They invest in petroleum. BA on the other hand has a load factor of 80%, but their tickets are much more expensive. The average profit per passenger across the industry is around 2%-4% fare price. (second hand info, take with a grain of salt)
About insurance, it differs from country to country since the legislation determines the minimum insurance per passenger, per passenger's baggage, per kg of cargo and per airframe (MTOW related). In simple words, most AOC holders pay the insurances for their aircraft according to the MTOW, which are the minimum requirement in terms of insurances and are normally paid annually (just like cars.) Crew member insurances are covered by the company and sometimes the gov. Passenger, baggage and cargo insurances depend. In many countries, passengers pay for their own insurance (included in the fare price. In China you can choose not to buy insurance and have a cheaper flight.)
For the EU, here's some websites that can explain better than me:
https://www.aviationreg.ie/airline-licensing-the-commissions-role/insurance.574.html
https://www.marsh.com/uk/industries/aviation-aerospace/airline-insurance.html
BTW thank you for not dropping FSX version and deciding to make V4 version for FSX. I will definitely buy it when it's available.
Minami